Well... it does.

If the game is SP with stealing, and the called ball was due to the ball landing in front of the plate, then the ball would be dead. At that point, there would be no interference... send R back to 2B and put the BR on 1B.

But that's not what you were getting at, was it? ;)

Very good, but it would never happen. Why? Since it was a "delayed steal", you know that the runner wouldn't bother once s/he saw the umpire give the appropriate dead ball signal. :rolleyes:

But to make it easier for our comrades in the Northwest, let's say it is FP.

I'm not sure what else can be said, as this is the definitive answer. Much as you may want to fall back on "the BR was doing what she is expected to do", the fact is the rule makes clear that the BR is expected to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting a throw, and is responsible to know when that is possible to happen. If the BR failed to pay attention, didn't know there was a delayed steal, didn't know there might be a throw, and didn't avoid interfering, then 8.2-F(2) applies.

The exception I could consider isn't stated as part of the scenario posted, thus doesn't apply. If I judged intent on the part of the catcher to create that contact rather than make a legitimate attempt to throw, then I would consider it a nothing. Absent that, I see no option to applying the rule as stated.

Then I'm on board with the interference call.

However, do we really know that F2 held the throw due to the contact with the BR? IF the ball sails into LF, it's pretty darn obvious that the INT happened; i.e. F2 "sold it".

I will sometimes judge the lack of throw - did F2 intend to throw to 3B and held up due to the contact, or was it a pump-fake the whole time? One might draw an INT call from me, one might not. Judgement call.

That is why we get the big bucks to make those judgment calls.

I love the people who refuse to call something because they "cannot read the player's mind". If you are an umpire with any experience, you know INT or OBS when you see it, just like you know a bunt or a batter looking to get hit when you see it.

Well then my vote goes to HTBT.... coz the OP doesn't give me the detail i need. :)

Maybe.

Maybe not.

The OP tells you the catcher had a play. It tells you that as the catcher came up trying to make a throw, the batter moved in a manner which caused contact which is active and hindering.

Intent is irrelevent.

If I'm a UIC and a coach protested the umpire's ruling, given this information, I would probably rule this as INT. Remove the fact that there was definitely a play, and I go to "no call". That's the bad part about being a UIC. You are only given a scenario and need to make a decision based solely on that. If you actually saw the play, you are a lucky UIC.

The OP does not give you an instant reply for you to make an INDEPENDENT judgment, but the OP clearly gives you the judgment made... the batter-runner stepped back and then stepped forward and collided with F2 who was attempting a throw. IF you had seen the play, THEN you could argue the judgment stated was not correct. But, without seeing the play, you are left with the judgment stated.

"relied" as past tense of rely, or re-lied, as in telling the lie again? ;)

I was all ready to chime in with agreement on the INT out since B1 was now a BR, until I read 8-2-F-1.

"BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.

F. When the batter-runner interferes with:

3. a thrown ball while out of the batter's box."

I agree that if in PU's judgement F2 was about to make a throw than the throw need not be completed to have an INT call, but the language of this rule seems to indicate the a BR does still have some protection as long as they are still in the friendly confines of the batter's box.

UmpireErnie,

You quote of the rule does not appy here. We are dealing with the actions of the BR in the batter's box (Dakota). The OP makes it quite clear that active and hindering action took place. The call should be immediate: DB, that's interference by the BR and return R1 top 2B.

IrishMafia wrote an OP that was quite clear with little doubt (in my mind) as to what the ruling should be. I am unsure as to why some had a difficult time in assessing this play. It is a play that we need to be aware of and be ready to call. And do not forget about Altump's point of the catcher initiating contact (there are still some out there that do that).

Ron

Ron,

I agree. The BR is out for interferring with an attempt to throw which is in ASA 8-2-F-2, litterally the sentance above the one I quoted.

The rule I was questioning, 8-2-F-3 would apply if F2 had actually made a throw and the ball was interferred with in flight. In that case, if the throw hit the BR while she was still in the box the ruling would be live ball play on unless the umpire judged that the BR intentionally interferred with the thrown ball.

Ernie